The shootings occurred after several officers, responding to a call for assistance, drove to the bridge and encountered six civilians who were walking across it to get food and supplies, the indictment says. The officers fired, killing one person -- later identified as 19-year-old James Brissette -- and wounding four others, according to the indictment.
Witness in 2006: New Orleans cops shot man in back
Once they reached the other side of the bridge, the officers started shooting again, killing Ronald Madison, a 40-year-old severely disabled man, the indictment says.
Madison was shot seven times -- five times in the back, the coroner has said.
What this sounds like to me is inexcusable police brutality. Cops often abuse their power. When their supervisors become aware of it, they help cover it up, as Lohmanto did.
What I can't accept is the pro-gun suggestion that this has something to do with a gun confiscation conspiracy. The exaggerated claim that post-Katrina gun confiscations took place in order for the government to execute citizens is beyond ridiculous.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The next time someone says i'm paranoid for owning body armor, i'll forward them this article.
ReplyDeleteDuring hurricane Katrina, we saw cops abandoning their posts, looting, committing home invasions, assaulting people, and even murdering people in the streets. Yet Mayor Nagin in all his infinite "wizdumb" never commanded anyone to disarm the police.
"The exaggerated claim that post-Katrina gun confiscations took place in order for the government to execute citizens is beyond ridiculous."
ReplyDeleteWho's making that claim?
The confiscations themselves are well documented and can be viewed on youtube. But that second part? Where did you get that?
kaveman, Zorro did. He should be coming around later today to defend it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that gun confiscations took place in order for the government to execute citizens, but there are two facts in that:
ReplyDelete#1. Unwarranted gun confiscations did take place.
#2. Government employees shot unarmed citizens.
Now I don't believe that there was a conspiracy in #1 so that #2 could happen. However, #2 may at least have been more difficult without #1.
Hurricane Katrina did not cut a bright line between a responsible, group of dedicated public servants supplying protection and enforcing the laws of NO and a group of murderous, blue-suited thugs committing crimes under color of authority.
ReplyDeleteThe NO police department's corruption and criminality is well documented and of long, long standing.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeletekaveman, Zorro did. He should be coming around later today to defend it.
Actually, what I said was:
If the city government's hired muscle was executing civilians, it kinda makes sense that they'd want those civilians helpless, and unable to resist, eh?
We do have strong allegations of the government's hired muscle executing citizens in the street. I just pointed out that with such goings on, the thugs had a strong motive to want the people disarmed. I did not say that's why the forcible disarmament policy was adopted--just that it would have been a compelling motive. I heard you like to "read into things and fill in the gaps," Mikeb--I guess you don't feel like playing that game here.
The fact remains that murderous cops are just one more reason to crack down on the evil of forcible disarmament. If that means killing the would-be disarmers--well, the world is overpopulated anyway.
It's nice for Zorro that he can see the difference between good laws and bad ones. The good ones are those he agrees with.
ReplyDelete"It's nice for Zorro that he can see the difference between good laws and bad ones. The good ones are those he agrees with."
ReplyDeleteIs that any different than how you define good laws or bad laws? Can you name one law that is a "good law" that you disagree with? How about a "bad law," that you do agree with?
Democommie says:
ReplyDeleteIt's nice for Zorro that he can see the difference between good laws and bad ones. The good ones are those he agrees with.
Well--this is refreshing. Democommie acknowledges that I agree with "good" (just) laws, and disagree with "bad" (unjust) ones--just as Henry David Thoreau and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did.
So, of course, I agree with laws against murder, and disagree with forcible citizen disarmament laws.
This is real progress, Democommie--I'm proud of you!
Apparently, noone let democommie know that the gun confiscations were ruled illegal in a court of law.
ReplyDeletekaveman:
ReplyDeleteNice strawman. I never said the confiscations were legal. I said that the proximate cause of police corruption in NO was not the advent of Hurricane Katrina.
Zorro:
Wrong again. I said that any law that YOU agree with is a good law. Did I need to put the "/s" on it so you would understand it was sarcasm?
Democommie says:
ReplyDeleteI said that any law that YOU agree with is a good law.
I got it, Democommie, and of course I agree with you: any law that I agree with is indeed a good law--else I wouldn't agree with it. I'm so thrilled about this breakthrough in our understanding!